Monday, January 11, 2016

Rosarior has made a solid attempt at providing an alternative to the Codes of Conduct that SJWs are successfully using in their attempt to enter and converge many open source software projects. It's called the Code of Merit.

A meritocratic code of conduct devoid of social politics.

This Code of Merit should not be necessary. The fact that it is necessary means there is something wrong with the solutions the software industry is trying. They should recognize that fact and not insist that their solution is the only solution.

Software is like nature: it evolves, so the best implementation must prevail.

You will contribute, you will learn, and mistakes are allowed.

Mistakes are not final and everybody has a second chance.

Don't expect others to do your work or help you with your work forever.

Harassment as defined by law will not be allowed. Questioning is not harassment. Repeated questioning after an individual has stated their desire for disengagement is harassment.

Censorship will not be permitted. Seeking to silence an individual voicing constructive opinions will not be allowed. Silencing vitriol is not censorship.

This is a space for technical prowess; world politics have no place here.

Everything that makes a person an individual, including but not limited to body, sex, sexual preference, race, language, religion, nationality, or political preferences are irrelevant in the scope of a technical project.

Everybody is different, so differences will not be mentioned by anyone, even by the individual suffering/experiencing/having/enjoying them. We are all individuals seeking the common goal of improving ourselves and improving our collective project.

Everybody has the same rights and the same opportunities to seek any challenge they want. The chance to screw up will not be denied to anybody.

There is no room for ambiguity: if an individual is ambiguous regarding a statement it is up to the individual to provide more context. Ambiguity will be met with questioning; further ambiguity will be met with silence.

If a discussion arises that cannot be solved in the space of the project, it will be discussed in a separate space. Disruption of the project will not be allowed.

This Code of Merit does not take precedence over governing law.

It's a good start, and I certainly support the idea, but I find it both defensive and excessively explanatory. I also find that it leaves a few small cracks that SJWs will, as is their wont, ruthlessly attempt to exploit.

Here is a first pass at a weaponized version that I believe will be more effective in both rooting out and deterring SJW entryists.

OSS Code of Merit

Everyone who joins this project agrees to abide by this meritocratic code in the interest of successfully reaching the objectives of this project.

No objectives beyond the stated objectives of this project are relevant to the project. Social Justice Warriors are not permitted to join this project in any capacity.

Any attempt to suggest, propose, or otherwise advocate for an alternate Code of Conduct or to advance social justice ideals will result in immediate expulsion from the project.

Your value to the project will be solely determined by your direct contributions to the project in the objective form of code, documentation, fundraising, and testing.

No member of the project who has not contributed [a specified amount of code] is permitted to accept any board position, administrative position, or management-related role in the project.

You will do your own work. Any attempt to pass off the work of others as your own will result in immediate expulsion from the project.

Individual characteristics related to body, sex, sexual preference, race, language, religion, and nationality
are irrelevant and will not be taken into account concerning your value to the project.

If a discussion arises that cannot be solved in the space of the
project, it will be discussed in a separate space. Disruption of the
project will not be allowed.

The director of the project is king, emperor, and god of the project. There are no limitations on his ability to make decisions and discipline members of the project. Cross him at risk of expulsion from the project.

All present and future advisory boards will answer to the director of the project. The director can disband any and all boards and committees at will and at his sole discretion.

The director of the project is X. The vice-director is Y. If the director is incapacitated or otherwise unable to perform his duties, Y will assume the director's role for three months and will appoint a substitute vice-director. If the director is still unable to perform his duties after three months, Y will become the director of the project and the substitute vice-director will become the vice-director.

If you do not approve of the direction or the objectives of the project, then leave the project.

One thing I've noticed is that SJWs always attempt to minimize the role of whoever started the project and made it successful, ergo shutting down any possibility of that by protecting the status of the project director and giving him the unrestricted ability to boot any member seeking to effect change should be the first priority of any project that wishes to remain productive and unconverged.

169 Comments:

The OSS Code:1. No rules. Brawling is allowed. The winner shall get to take the loser's wife for himself, assuming she's hot. If there is no wife or if the wife is ugly, the loser shall be expulsed from the project.

One thing I've noticed is that SJWs always attempt to minimize the role of whoever started the project and made it successful, ergo shutting down any possibility of that by protecting the status of the project director and giving him the unrestricted ability to boot any member should be the first priority of any project that wishes to remain unconverged.

It's their same game with the usual exemptions:

Authorial intent has no meaning, especially not for people they disagree with or with your holy writings or anything you find sacred.

Important exemptions are them, their friends, the Koran, and people who will actually harm them for attempting to claim their delusion as fact.

#8 hits on something that's actually a huge problem in OSS and one of the reasons that SJWs are having good success there. The leaders/founders of OSS projects have a huge tendency to simply get bored/busy/sick/injured/dead and abandon the project, typically anywhere from six months to three years after founding it. Boredom is usually the lead cause of this - when there's no money involved to keep someone around, they eventually just move on with life. Then the project either dies altogether or there's a huge power vacuum - which is perfect for entryists of all kinds, not just SJWs.

I'd just add something like "This project is under a license that allows anyone including SJWs to form their own team and fork it if they think they can do it better".

As to #4, yes, though it need not be official patches. But you need to demonstrate technical prowess and that you understand the what/why/how, and that usually means contributing something useful to the project to demonstrate it. Even Rander Harpi added a few small improvements (not enough to justify management structure changes). That will be a problem, but Linus I think would listen to a longtime lieutenant. Those doing device driver miscellany think their contributions give them privileges. They will be shot down, but then write a whiny blog post.

Code of Conduct for Danby's Open Source Project 1) show us the code 2) you are not required to tel us anything about your race, ethinicity, religion, sexuality, gender identity, pastimes, hobbies, likes, dislikes, turn-ons, family or even your real name in order to contribute to this project. If you bring it up, it is presumed that you want such things to be commented on. 3) you are free to take offense at anything or everything anybody says. Everyone else is free to ignore you. 4) We believe in Free software, Free Speech, and Free Beer. 5) We are not here to welcome you. We are here to write good code. You are exactly as unwelcome as you choose to feel. 6) If you do not like how this project is run, or the people who run it. you are free to fork the code. Good Luck.

I agree with tz @10. If you just say "specified amount of code", that could leave the door open to entryists doing miscellaneous work that nobody else really wants to do and just stretching the code out over as much LoC as they can manage.

But I still see the value in this Code: by adopting this Code, a project manager can say "Sorry, we already have a Code, and it's better than whatever shit you could conceive."

But the bottom line is the project manager needs to actively police his project against entryism. It's a social engineering attack, not a technical one that can be resolved by a Code.

If you just say "specified amount of code", that could leave the door open to entryists doing miscellaneous work that nobody else really wants to do and just stretching the code out over as much LoC as they can manage.

Remember that it doesn't automatically qualify you for consiredation, it just means that you don't get disqualified due to not contributing program code.

Don't see anything wrong with 2. Alternate means 'not this one' full stop. There is nothin ambiguous here

#2 can be construed as meaning either a completely new code or just alternative wording/options for the code in question. If you took a strict reading of #2, you'd essentially be saying that even offering suggestions for improvements to what amounts to a draft version of a COC would be grounds for expulsion.

VD notes that it's just a first pass at the code, and I'm just pointing to one spot that could be tightened up. The lack of a solid "suck it up" clause about salty language is also something that should at least be thought about.

The director of the project is king, emperor, and god of the project. There are no limitations on his ability to make decisions and discipline members of the project. Cross him at risk of expulsion from the project.

If you took a strict reading of #2, you'd essentially be saying that even offering suggestions for improvements to what amounts to a draft version of a COC would be grounds for expulsion.

Yes. I think it's important to know that when you make the decision to contribute or not contribute to a particular project, you'll know that the deal doesn't get changed afterwards. What you saw is what you get.

Items 8 in Vox's Code essentially nullifies the whole thing. Since there are explicitly "no limitations on his ability to make decisions", he can decide to change the Code on a whim.

If item 8 is mostly targeted at unwanted/disruptive members, then the Director could just be given the right to expel members from the project, subject to a 2/3rds veto of some Expulsion Board. The director could have the absolute right to veto anyone's election/appointment to that Board (but not the absolute right to remove existing members of that Board).

This should prevent almost any project hijacking without giving the Director a dictator's power.

Yes. I think it's important to know that when you make the decision to contribute or not contribute to a particular project, you'll know that the deal doesn't get changed afterwards. What you saw is what you get.

No SJWs, no CoCs, and we don't care who you are otherwise, so keep that other crap out of it. Contribute your own best stuff, be prepared for criticism. The project lead has stated objectives for the project, is boss and decides who has a say; piss the boss off and you're gone. Don't like any of this, then scat.

Actually, that sounds pretty much like Linus' approach. Small wonder his project has been so successful.

Right now the focus seems to be on telling SJWs they're not wanted, and telling them what you won't tolerate. But SJWs won't care about either: they'll fly under the radar until they can strike, and stated rules mean nothing to them - they count on rules being unenforced or arbitrarily enforced until they can change them.

Want to minimize the SJW presence in your project? Then you don't just want reasonable rules. You want a stated commitment to a vision. Positive agreement, rather than warnings.

Something along these lines: A participant in project X acknowledges that a member's value in the project is determined solely by their contributions, and adherence to the CoC. Political preferences, race, sexuality, religion, membership in a Protected Persons class, or otherwise are acknowledged as irrelevant to all participants.

Note that this differs from 6. 6 is giving a stated standard. The above is extracting a statement of value from the participant.

That can be tuned up and toned in a way that most well-adjusted people will find nothing objectionable, but SJWs will choke before they ever accept. Understand that SJWs are willing to lie and engage in deception to a point, but there are ideas and thoughts that they consider utter blasphemy. Use that to your advantage.

If a SJW explicitly agrees to the CoC, you have them on record committing blasphemy in their circles. If they explicitly reject the CoC, they've signed their resignation from it.

Your weaponized code correctly reframes the Code as protecting the objective outcome of the project rather than its workers' feelings. But in today's society, using "Social Justice Warrior" is a low-status signal. When the average person hears "SJW" they classify the person saying it as a loser troll from 4chan who is bitter about not being able to openly abuse people. That's the frame you're working in. Blame the media for that.

What your reframe means is that you've positioned yourself as the intrepid capitalist winner or even a sort of auteur who tolerates no whining and bellyaching about feelings, only the product matters. That frame has much more appeal to the average person; it makes the SJW look like a petty complainer who can't see the big picture.

We are all aware of the power the SJW has to ruin projects, but we must fight them with contempt and dismissiveness, the weapons of high status.

Think of it this way. What does the alpha do when a gamma comes up and hits on his girl in front of his friends? Does he hysterically call the gamma a loser and call him out on what he's doing? No. He SHOWS the crowd that the interloper is a loser and humiliates him without the open conflict that acknowledges the enemy as a threat.

If you took a strict reading of #2, you'd essentially be saying that even offering suggestions for improvements to what amounts to a draft version of a COC would be grounds for expulsion.

You're completely missing the point. This is a draft version. If I were to launch a project, it would not be a draft. It would not say X and Y. It would actually specify the amount of code required.

And yes, ANY suggestion to changing the Code of Merit is potential grounds for expulsion. Because that is the first place entryists will attack.

We are all aware of the power the SJW has to ruin projects, but we must fight them with contempt and dismissiveness, the weapons of high status.

You too are missing an important point. We don't give a damn what the average person thinks. They are irrelevant. The point is to deter the entryists so they will not even bother, and go in search of a softer target instead. We're talking about programmers here. Virtually none of them have high socio-sexual status.

SJWs won't care about either: they'll fly under the radar until they can strike, and stated rules mean nothing to them - they count on rules being unenforced or arbitrarily enforced until they can change them.

Obviously. But this will deter them and give the project leader the means of dealing decisively with them if they try anyhow.

But in today's society, using "Social Justice Warrior" is a low-status signal. When the average person hears "SJW" they classify the person saying it as a loser troll from 4chan who is bitter about not being able to openly abuse people. That's the frame you're working in. Blame the media for that.

But in today's society, using "Social Justice Warrior" is a low-status signal. When the average person hears "SJW" they classify the person saying it as a loser troll from 4chan who is bitter about not being able to openly abuse people. That's the frame you're working in. Blame the media for that.

Opposite of true. There is a reasons SJWs now despise the term, flee from it, and demand it banned: and it's not because it paints their enemies as low-status.

Or, rather, when 95% of society is viewed as 'low-status', it hardly matters. Kinda like 'racist'.

There is no code of conduct on earth which is unassailable by these ankle-biting, snot-gobbling SJW. I am not saying not to have them or that they won't be effective; we just shouldn't be too surprised when cracks are found that they will gleefully try to exploit to their advantage, even if they have to invent those 'cracks' out of thin air.

After all, iirc, G-d Himself gave us a code of conduct, engraved in stone with His finger a little while back, that hasn't fared much better over the last few millennia.

Obviously. But this will deter them and give the project leader the means of dealing decisively with them if they try anyhow.

That's my concern: your solution puts a lot of weight on the will and intelligence of the project leader. A COC can't rescue anyone from a shitty project leader, but a COC should make their jobs easier. And SJWs are not only going to look for opportunities to play rules-lawyer: there's a good chance they'll find them.

They'll jump on 5 and creatively interpret harassment. They'll jump on 4 and get creative with 'forever'. They'll appeal to 3 and demand their second chances ten times in a row.They'll appeal to 6 and say someone's rejecting their contributions because they're a gay crippled black transexual.

And your smart, committed leaders will be tempted to argue rather than act. They'll be tempted to demonstrate how SJW logic fails rather than just shutdown.

That's why I recommend a commitment to and endorsement of the values of the project. I'm sure someone can get creative with interpretations there, but for SJWs, image is everything. If you don't want SJWs in your project, don't give rules that make it hard for them to achieve their goals. Have them commit to values they'd reject and find abhorrent, but would appeal to others. To use a religious example: SJWs will find million ways to creatively interpret a teaching against same-sex marriage to utterly defang it, in lieu of changing it. Require them to publicly affirm that same-sex marriage is immoral, and most will walk. The cost is too high.

"No objectives beyond the stated objectives of this project are relevant to the project. Social Justice Warriors are not permitted to join this project in any capacity."

Totally agreed. But how does one go about identifying an SJW a priori?

The rest of the rules would likely be highly effective at deterring SJWs once they've already latched onto a project- but is there a sensible way to stop them from getting anywhere near the project in the first place?

The obvious counterargument here, of course, is that "background checks don't work". Which they don't. There is no reason to think that background-checking an SJW would be any more effective than trying to stop an Islamist from purchasing and using a gun.

I have been an artist in the indy scene for a very long time, and I understand that while you, as a coder, have basically zero respect for graphic and sound craftsmen, we are still utterly vital to the success of many projects.

I have seen too many projects fail due to unimmersive or stupid use of interface assets, and consider our contribution as vital as that of any coder, especially in the gaming scene.

Believe it or not, the art side actually has LESS busybody sjw types than the coding side, mostly because, while you can guide an artist to produce what you want (usually) bitching about their subject matter is irrelevant. asset artists work to get paid, and the social justice types are over on THAT side, in the commercial art scene, where some loser can make a jackson pollock with his rectum and make millions. Game artists desire only two things... to get paid, and to get publicity to get paid more. You don't get much more conservative than that.

actually I just should have said 'assets', because frankly, the guy that buys me free beer and pizza every friday night while I am working is welcome to make comments on the project too. He bought his way in.

assets include things like art, music, story, plot, and interface design elements. So that makes the word 'asset' a nice catch all without including the 'emotive' shit that SJW's run with.

But a project involving 1+n people IS, by definition, a social endeavour.

The point that needs to be made in your pre-amble is that the project originator has decided on the goals and concerns of the project, and if you want a project with different goals and concerns, then go start your own.

The script, the background conversations, and even the radio stations are full of it. Conservative ideology masked as Burge-level satire on America. On every single GTA game. Thank Dan and Sam Houser. I wouldn't polish their shoes, 'cause I'd probably do it wrong.

And it makes the games believable.

How nerdy is GTA San Andreas? David Cross is a voice actor... for a complete nerd.

@38 I have been an artist in the indy scene for a very long time, and I understand that while you, as a coder, have basically zero respect for graphic and sound craftsmen, we are still utterly vital to the success of many projects.

Not me, and not the programmers I know. I worked in games for a number of years (graphics programmer) and now work in film, and I can tell you that the majority of us graphics programmers feel that we are in the service of the arts. It really is my job to make the artists look good. I and everyone I work with has a ton of respect for artists, even though they commit some pretty funny technical faux pas with impunity.

Believe it or not, the art side actually has LESS busybody sjw types than the coding side

I'm not so sure about that. Maybe my perception has skewed a bit since I moved over from games to film, but artists are more likely to be into feelings and such so they are generally more susceptible to leftist influence. However, the tendency towards SJWism is not markedly more common than the engineering side.

Although I will say, artists are a lot more likely to be the "F-it!" types, and so in certain areas of the world that means they like to rock the leftist boat too. Nonconformity and creativity are bunk mates it seems.

You were discussing an exception of well intentioned suggestions that do not deserve expulsion; expulsion is only relevant when the Code of Conduct is in live use by an organization.

Revision and suggestions before going live obviously cannot trigger the expulsion clause - there's no organization to expulse from.

The COC being designed to remain unchanged is a feature, and it needing to be left untouched is something that #2 conveys but #8 does not.

I'm not sure what you people aren't getting: #2 is not written well enough.#8 makes every other #irrelevant, and makes the over-the-top automatic penalty in #2 needless.

People offering improvements to anything, including a code, are not all going to be doing so from an SJW perspective, so having an immediate expulsion policy for something as simple as what would basically be a note in a suggestion box is idiotic. That is even more the case when there is another clause in your code that can cover an SJW entry attempt.

@31 After all, iirc, G-d Himself gave us a code of conduct, engraved in stone with His finger a little while back, that hasn't fared much better over the last few millennia.

Amen. But there will come a time where their breaking of The Code of Conduct will bite them square in the ass, and the One who kept the law will grant them The Final Safe Space they so desperately want so much.

People offering improvements to anything, including a code, are not all going to be doing so from an SJW perspective, so having an immediate expulsion policy for something as simple as what would basically be a note in a suggestion box is idiotic.

Scintan, the only idiot here is you. EVERY suggestion for altering the Code of Conduct is indicative of entryism. Such codes didn't exist in OSS before SJWs. I would absolutely kick out someone for putting a note in a suggestion box relating to the Code of Conduct, particularly if they'd been warned.

You simply don't know anything about how they have taken over MOST of OSS in a very short period of time that way. They even have a script for it that I have seen utilized again and again.

I see a problem with #6 in the weaponized version: Individual characteristics related to body, sex, sexual preference, race, language, religion, and nationality are irrelevant and will not be taken into account concerning your value to the project.

It either needs to be eliminated as superfluous, merged with #3, or written more broadly so as not to provide wiggle room for something that is not on the list.

so having an immediate expulsion policy for something as simple as what would basically be a note in a suggestion box is idiotic

So then it's back to my previous question - what Code improvement is so important that it needs to not be discouraged by the Code?

A suggestion that is ignored is unimportant and unnecessary, so the only suggestions that matter are the ones that need to be implemented - which could be and can be hammered out before activating the Code. So what important thing is being missed?

In computing, there's a class of software which is designed to never be updated. It takes a lot of testing beforehand to make it happen, but it can be done.

I don't see why a COC designed to never be updated during its operational life cannot be deployed in a similar fashion.

Eliminate #2 completely. #8 already implicitly covers the situation. In fact, by not stating #2, you're more likely to get SJWs to tip their hand by offering the sort of 'helpful' suggestions that expose their SJW agenda.

Imagine extending #2 to general coding. Everyone understands that even games that were developed over years can have issues. Now, all of the sudden, the very people who deal with that are too stupid to understand its applicability here?

Suggestions about altering the standard code for the next project is fine. Suggestions about altering the code that is actually in effect in a particular project, and that people have signed up for, is not. That is changing the deal. Bait and switch.

VD's draft comes over as agressive due to phrasing of rule 1,2,8. (Not disagreeing with the content /message, just wording.)At least both are better as the typical SJW code that seems to give more importance to being inclusive as to the original project goals.

Eliminate #2 completely. #8 already implicitly covers the situation. In fact, by not stating #2, you're more likely to get SJWs to tip their hand by offering the sort of 'helpful' suggestions that expose their SJW agenda.

#2 and #8 are not equivalent. #8 gives the project leader a free hand to police the organization. #2 grants everyone else in the organization the authority and knowledge to ID and expel SJWs according to the metric of wanting COC changes.

Everyone understands that even games that were developed over years can have issues. Now, all of the sudden, the very people who deal with that are too stupid to understand its applicability here?

So give me an example already - what does the Code need to be able to adapt to?

Suggestions about altering the standard code for the next project is fine. Suggestions about altering the code that is actually in effect in a particular project, and that people have signed up for, is not. That is changing the deal. Bait and switch.

Thanks for writing about this. I think it is important that software developers know they are not alone if they want to repeal a SJW Code of Conduct from their project. The Code of Merit 1.0 will be release officially the 14th (this Thursday). Thanks for your suggestions I will be looking to incorporate them.

No shit. #8 makes #2 functionally irrelevant. Anything that can be done under #2 can be done under #8. If the director wants to put someone in charge of SJW hunts, he's free to do that under #8. If he wants to let every single supervisor police for even the slightest sign of anything he dislikes, he's free to do that under #8.

As #8 says:

"There are no limitations on his ability to make decisions".

Hell, #8 allows for the project director to scrap the entire code on a whim, thus showing Markku's argument about a bait and switch to be meaningless.

#8 makes #2 functionally irrelevant. Anything that can be done under #2 can be done under #8. If the director wants to put someone in charge of SJW hunts, he's free to do that under #8. If he wants to let every single supervisor police for even the slightest sign of anything he dislikes, he's free to do that under #8.

It's called "redundancy", Scintan. So, even if the project director is too busy to play SJW police, even if he doesn't put people on it, everyone understands what sort of thing is not allowed.

Furthermore, #8 does not render #2 irrelevant. While the director can do anything he wants, there are certain things he has publicly committed to doing by endorsing the Code. Which is keeping SJWs out.

Your suggestions have been heard, considered, and rejected. There is no more need to discuss the points you have raised.

You could also add that contributors should be prepared to, upon request, set up a skype video session with some project representative, as determined by the project manager. Failure to comply in a satisfactory manner may at PR or PM discretion result in expulsion or suspension.

#2 doesn't allow for either version of those suggestions to be put forth.

Those are suggestions about functionality. The code is about what acts are punishable by expulsion from the project. Entirely different things. Nobody has committed to the project because they want the game to lock up on the X screen when you walk to the right after doing Y. They have committed to the objective of making the game as good as it can be.

@75 #2 is not overtly broad. If SJWs find a way to exploit the COM #8 is there so that the director can expel them, or add to the list. This doesn't require input from other people. All it requires is someone point out to the director that SJWs are exploiting a loop hole. They don't need to tell the director what to do after that. You are being obtuse because you aren't understanding that a project director and his designated co-director are not going to adopt a code like this if they weren't committed to keeping SJWs out of the organization.

" I also find that it leaves a few small cracks that SJWs will, as is their wont, ruthlessly attempt to exploit."

Yep, look at #6,

6. Censorship will not be permitted. Seeking to silence an individual voicing constructive opinions will not be allowed. Silencing vitriol is not censorship.

The SJWs will love to silence anyone with lies and innuendo as in their eyes as most speech that contradicts them is wrong and unsafe. Look at how they have twisted Vox's comments and made him the Dark Lord he is today. They never ever go back to the original source of something they disagree with but twist it and change as only good little Wormtongues are best at achieving.

One is and one isn't, yet both are barred by #2 in the COC ... You, along with Vox, aren't thinking that through, which is odd because this is admittedly just a draft version.

The code is about what acts are punishable by expulsion from the project.

No, the COC is an attempt to properly frame a document to allow the author's desires to be upheld against outside challenge. #10 has nothing to do with expulsions, for example. It's legalese, not actual code.

Words mean things, #2 should be removed, or amended at the least. It's a simple fix.

Others have already pointed to potential issues that exist right now. I can't be expected to know exactly what would come up in the future, when I don't have an exact finalized version of the COC now, and have never claimed to be an infallible seer.

Do explain how proposals to modify the functionality of the project are proposals to switch the existing Code of Conduct with an alternative Code of Conduct.

You, along with Vox, aren't thinking that through, which is odd because this is admittedly just a draft version.

It is starting to look like you are the moron. The code is not in effect in any particular project. Hence modifications to it are not yet forbidden in any forum whatsoever. When it is in effect, then they are forbidden for that particular project.

Suggestions to a modified one in future projects, in any other venue, are fine.

Others have already pointed to potential issues that exist right now. I can't be expected to know exactly what would come up in the future, when I don't have an exact finalized version of the COC now, and have never claimed to be an infallible seer.

You can't think of any specific improvements, but you want the potential for improvements.

It's a bit like designing software for remote updates, when there's no use case for remote updates. That's evidence in favor of NOT doing it.

Whether it's about the functionality of the game, or the lack of super chicks in the game, it would be barred under a "no suggestions for the game after publication" rule. And, despite Vox assuring me that I've no idea what the hell I'm talking about, I'm confident in saying that, since post-publication software patches exist, the idea of a theoretically finished product somehow being inviolate is not, in fact, the approach all programmers take.

Revision after "completion" is what Linux is all about, nowadays, in fact.

Scintan, you truly don't appear to be understanding either the intent of rule 2 or the arguments of your interlocutors. Try taking a step back and reviewing both to see how you're making a category error.

Umm, artists in the indy scene are definitely NOT the sorts you will find in film.

First off, we are not 'talented', we are 'craftsmen'. and have worked, for the most part, very hard to become so.

Our pride is, in a game, to have our individual contributions unnoticed... which means, we try to adapt to a standardized format so well that you cannot look at two characters, or two textures, and figure out that they were created by different artists.

The problem is, because we work so hard at being unnoticed, a lot of the time the artist's ideas are entirely disregarded, even if, (as in the case of a level designer and artist working together) those suggestions would be well founded and improve the game as a whole.

I understand it is a dodgy street, since the last thing you want is some whack-minded 'creative' type trying to give marching orders to coders, but in truth...most of those whack minded creative types you don't want on a project, especially an open source project, because they are likely to bail at the first sign of their demands being met.

My concern, however, is that legitimate criticism or well-founded ideas should not be dismissed out of hand because according to the 'code' those people are not 'contributors', especially since many of us (myself included) coded for a very long time and understand exactly what you are doing or going through. Admittedly my 20+ years of COBOL experience is irrelevant to the actual logic of the game, but that doesn't mean I do not understand the process, as well as what is or isn't possible, and what would be a massive waste of time and energy.

That's why I changed my post to 'assets'. They work every bit as hard as coders, they are every bit as much a specialist, and their 'brain work' is every bit as difficult as yours (as proven by a thousand examples of 'coder art') and as valuable to a project.

BTW- indy artists, people who make their living streaming for customers or creating game assets, are a heck of a lot more grounded in 'real world' than network coders... I have yet to meet a network coder or admin that wasn't a flaming egalitarian in public and an iron-fisted despot away from the end users.

I'm a lawyer discussing problematic language in a document. It's an area of familiarity. I'm not being obtuse. I'm trying to be helpful.

No, you're a lawyer doing what lawyers do: trying to create a problem in order to be able to suggest a solution that involves your help. You're not being helpful in any way, shape, or form, you are FAR too ignorant to even understand what we're talking about.

As I and others have pointed out, you didn't even grasp the difference between CODE and code. It's a good thing we weren't speaking Italian or you would have started arguing about leash laws.

Danby's code @11 is hard to improve upon. I've liked it since it was first proposed. It's succinct, direct, easy to understand, does not use current vernacular (e.g., SJW) that may not stand up well over years, and makes good use of the "code fork" as the answer to most project pathologies. What's not to like?

@104 You are being obtuse. You are demanding an amendment process in a Code of Conduct. A code of conduct that allows the director to take care of any unforeseen issues, and ensures that the director is engaged or replaced by his vice-director.

The only possible scenarios where that is not sufficient to limit SJW entryism is if one of those two positions was occupied by an SJW at the start of the project or both of them completely disappear from the project at the same time.

That's why I changed my post to 'assets'. They work every bit as hard as coders, they are every bit as much a specialist, and their 'brain work' is every bit as difficult as yours (as proven by a thousand examples of 'coder art') and as valuable to a project.

Sorry, but no. I agree that art is very important. That's where most of a game budget goes, after all. But the contributions of the assets are too nebulous to be easily policed, and artists are much more likely to be SJWs than coders. Even the craftsmen.

That doesn't mean an artist can't be involved and respected, it just means he can't lead. Don't like it? Start your own project. Hell, customize your own Code of Merit and keep the programmers out of leadership if you prefer.

You are being obtuse. You are demanding an amendment process in a Code of Conduct.

And there IS one: Just change the damned thing. As you see, nothing forbids the owner of the project from doing so. Only others are forbidden, at the pain of expulsion, from pestering the owner about it.

A CoC is not a legally binding document between the owner and the coder. It is a statement of intent about kicking the coder's butt, if he annoys others in ways enumerated in the text.

The only possible scenarios where that is not sufficient to limit SJW entryism is if one of those two positions was occupied by an SJW at the start of the project or both of them completely disappear from the project at the same time.

Both of which provide definite visible events to users and developers as to how/when the rot begins. (COC change, major leadership change, leadership ignoring COC, etc)

A fork and blacklist of the SJWs involved will then allow non-SJWs to route around the damage. The code will have served its purpose.

No, you're a lawyer doing what lawyers do: trying to create a problem in order to be able to suggest a solution that involves your help. You're not being helpful in any way, shape, or form, you are FAR too ignorant to even understand what we're talking about.

As I and others have pointed out, you didn't even grasp the difference between CODE and code. It's a good thing we weren't speaking Italian or you would have started arguing about leash laws.

Just to respond to this, since you continued:

I was not doing what you claim, and I have enough of a grasp of code v. code to know what I was saying, and what I was talking about.

I'll contribute something for once. Here, I cucked the code up for you.

OSS Code of Conduct

Everyone who joins this project agrees to abide by this Code of Conduct in the interest of successfully reaching the objectives of this project.1. Only the stated objectives of this project are relevant to the project. Social Justice Warriors are not permitted to join the project in any capacity. 2. Suggesting, proposing, or otherwise advocating for an alternate Code of Conduct or to advance social justice ideals will result in immediate expulsion from the project. 3. Your value to the project is solely determined by your contributions to the project in the objective form of code, documentation, fundraising, and testing. 4. Only members of the project who contribute [a specified amount of code] are permitted to fill board positions, administrative positions, or management-related roles in the project. 5. Plagiarism is not permitted. Any attempt to pass off the work of others as your own will result in immediate expulsion from the project. 6. Personal characteristics such as body, sex, sexual preference, race, language, religion, and nationality are irrelevant and will not be taken into account concerning your value to the project. 7. If a disagreement arises that cannot be solved in the space of the project, it will be discussed in a separate space. Disruption of the project will not be allowed. 8. The director of the project is god-king and emperor of the project. There are no limitations on his ability to make decisions and add or remove members of the project.9. All present and future advisory boards will answer to the director of the project. The director can disband any and all boards and committees at will and at his sole discretion. 10. The director of the project is X. The vice-director is Y. If the director is incapacitated or otherwise unable to perform his duties, Y will assume the director's role for three months and will appoint a substitute vice-director. If the director is still unable to perform his duties after three months, Y will become the director of the project and the substitute vice-director will become the vice-director. 11. If you do not approve of the direction or the objectives of the project, then leave the project and go fork yourself.

@scintan,The proposed code is NOT a contract or agreement. It establisgesjes no rights, it provides no benefits, it is (ideally) not possible to establish a tort under it.If you're thinking of it in legal terms, it's a notification of intent.

As a side not, and so you can recognize my double posting habit, the strategy of creating a crisis so you can solve it is very effective for engineers at large corporations as well.*If you are highly competent, you should be able to identify at least 9 impending crises that will obviously result from current projects.*If you are somewhat competent, you have to wait for a crisis and then blame it on someone who's in your way.

@111 Afraid you're guilty as charged. Suggesting different characters (which might make a game more fun) has absolutely nothing to do with policing the language of the people writing them, or evaluating contributors on anything but their contributions.

Maybe girls kicking ass makes the game better. So long as players can pick a girl character whose armor is about 20 square inches of material over a shapely bod and who deflects damage with the power of her sexiness, it may still play well... and give the SJWs strokes.

People suggesting Lena Dunham as the prototype for a character should probably be laughed out... unless it's an NPC inserted for comic relief.

I've known a few producers/managers in the industry that came from an art background that made great leaders, and would have tossed out aspiring SJWs on their butts. But I see the wisdom of not including content creators in leadership by default, and make an exception for those who prove themselves over time.

Let's be honest, how many OSS projects out there require tons of art and content? If we had a Code of Merit tailored for commercial/closed projects, the leadership calculus changes a little bit, as the scale tends to be different. Plus, you can use money constraints as an excuse to toss out whoever you want, whereas in open projects you don't have that. SJWs are happy to label you a pariah and burn down your house for free.

108 Vox, agreed. To throw most artists off I use terms like artisan even fingerpainter from annoying experience artists are SJW or fruityflakes. These days when asked by the non-serious questionable type I tell them I install VCR's. I'm not funny but its hilarious!

Moving on, I favor the 2nd OSS version of conduct, merit is more admirable. The project manager or say in gaming, the worldmaster IS the final authority.

OSS list of policy/procedural promote the productive, superintel, expanded creativity, highly focused team whom will bring to fruition a even higher vision or better outcome than even imagined.

One unknown; staff strategically. Keep the women out of the work, if at all possible keep the women out.

I think it's important to establish the power of the director before anything else. By doing so, it is clear up front where the authority of the rest of the code comes from, and also that the project is not a democracy, which may help deter those who expect it to be one from trying to join.

SJW's really are shameless about their tactics aren't' they? I do remember Michael Moore joining the NRA for the same reason. Considering how luke-warm the NRA is, I'm under the impression that there is already a degree of SJW convergence there as it is. US Rep. Carolyn Maloney is quite the looker too, certainly reinforces the typical anti-gun female activist stereotype.

"“Perhaps if we all join, we could take over that group and start a new (gun control) platform,” Krueger said. “I think we outnumber the people who are members of the NRA and are so totally opposed to any kind of rational gun laws.”http://www.guns.com/2015/10/14/anti-gun-new-york-democrat-calls-for-infiltration-of-nra/

The project's product--i.e. the code that makes up an open source project--is governed by the license. MIT, GPL, Apache, BSD, etc. This Code, capital-C, basically governs the mailing list, message board, IRC channel or whatever. To use an analogy, the U.S. Constitution is a different thing than a "No Flash Photography" rule, but they're both in force at the National Archives to achieve different purposes.

It is a little confusing since it crams operational guidelines in with behavior guidelines, though. Rule 8, 9 and 10 is an attempt to make every project leader Linus, but Linusii are pretty thin on the ground. Project operations are an implementation detail better left out of a Code, IMO. Maybe this is where Scintan lost the plot.

This does raise the question of whether open source software can survive contact with today's social justice ideals unscathed. ESR's Cathedral/Bazaar analogy may apply here. In order for open source software to exist free of influences that may injure or kill the OSS project, it must move away from the bazaar model (which depended on a common shared culture) towards the cathedral in order to prevent interlopers from kicking over the stalls and farting on the produce.

I like it! Although Vox's does add that the project director is king (it defines the "we"). You could add that revision defining the first word, and you'd capture just about all of the essential elements.

Kings can always delegate though. If some director wants to promise real power in the project in excange for significant contribution, then they are perfectly free to adapt the code to that.

Would the Linux kernel be as successful as it is now if this had been implemented as a Code in, say, 1994?

Countering a wedge Code with a countering Code is satisfying, but I'm not sure it solves the core problem, which is sidetracking a technical issue with social issues.

Jack Amok hits on the Linus solution, albeit indirectly: trademark the brand. This puts your project in easy-peasy trademark law, as compared to the shitstorm of Internet message board law involved in interpreting a Code of Conduct and Managerial Oversight.

I think that's a worthy point. As a personal thing I would be inclined to sandwich the lesser content between two iterations of this. Just to emphasize that all other provisions are subsidiary to this one and cannot by any means override or overturn it.

Actually, there's always been sort of a war going on between coders and artists. I have started my own projects, but keeping a coder plugging at what he 'should be' working on instead of what he 'wants to be' working on is about ten times harder than it is for an asset creator.

Honestly, most coders willing to help you write code for your 'concept' are like massive primadonnas that seem to enjoy adding crap in without discussing it or using cludgy workarounds instead of getting the job done.

Case in point. Was working on an art-driven game, basically a 3d tower defense, low-end. Pretty simple really, used Unity.

Needed some custom code (obviously) and was having trouble figuring out how to pay for it... With art you can pay by completed piece, but this was NOT a 'piece of the action' deal. finally settled on telling (whoever) what needed to be done that was outside default unity bounds, and settling on a price before hand, half on demo, half on completion. Went through 6 coders before we finally had a working prototype, mostly they couldn't even get demo going... they generally just wasted an enormous amount of our deadline, a bit of cash (I pay people for their work) and a lot of patience.

I mean, you cannot just charge time, right? what if the guy likes picking his nose for hours while 'compiling' his way through a couple of episodes of farscape and feet porn?

I think the coders wind up as default project leaders, because while 'scale' for paid (and unpaid) artists is pretty easy to calculate, coders can pretty much pull any bullshit they want to... which gives them all the power in a project.

How do you decide what to pay a coder in an indy project? Especially if you don't speak code, and have little idea of how it is he does what he does?

Hourly clearly doesn't work, there is no piece work, and a piece of the action is ALWAYS a scam (especially if the 'idea guy' thinks it is not)considering the failure rates. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is, but how do you determine what a piece of code is WORTH? Or if a coder is the real deal or some crappy 4chan hero?

I mean, you can look right at an artist's folio and tell if he's any good, and prices are a breeze (I need 16 menus, a 2600 poly ogre with boning and fully UV skin at 32k with bump and spec, 16 animations for said ogre, and two dozen hand painted brick walls. I will give you a thousand bucks for it.)

How do you decide what to pay a coder in an indy project? Especially if you don't speak code, and have little idea of how it is he does what he does?

Pay on delivery. If it doesn't work the way it's supposed to, he doesn't get paid. A good coder with experience can always give you an estimate and a price tag. If he tries to hide behind billable hours, he's not any good anyhow.

The general industry standard is definitely hourly. As an experienced contractor, I'd pass on 'pay on delivery' work for somebody I don't already know and trust. Too much risk of getting dicked around by an inexperienced (or worse) buyer. Perhaps you, the buyer, change your mind, over and over. I'm sure it's for the best reasons, like competitors shaking up the market. Or you fail to communicate lucidly what you really are after, resulting in an endless list of changes. Perhaps you yourself don't even know clearly what you're after. And it's not unknown to hold out on a big contract until your supplier runs into cash flow problems, then renegotiate. Among other things.

Estimation may be possible, depending on how well-defined your project is. For example, if you want the following 24 screens in PHP, no big deal. But many projects are far more loosely defined, with sliding features, requirements, deadlines, etc. While estimates are probably still desired and will be produced, they are also of little real value and I won't assume the risk of working at an undefined task for a fixed price.

That's why we end up with hourly rates and "agile".

How to figure out which people are any good in this world of hourly payments: do a small bit of paid work with them and see how it works out, then expand if you like it. If the job is more substantial and you're not technical, I'd recommend looking into working with a contracting firm who can staff and manage the project. They will change out programmers who are a bad fit, etc. The best price/performance is in Eastern Europe or Russia in my experience (which, however, is not in the game industry).

@146 Vox, I don't think it's always possible to provide the kind of accurate estimate you are talking about. It depends on the project and the kind of work. For the kind piece work described, by all means. But even then, it's hard to properly spec projects once they get beyond of certain size. It also depends on the caliber of the developer. I can self-manage myself very well even for projects that are weeks or longer in duration. Paying someone like that hourly is not a problem. For your typical coder low on experience, my understanding from an actual manager is they need much more hands on management (projects no more than one day long at a time). For offshore coders, they might only be able to handle small tasks of an hour or two duration that are easily estimated.

I don't think it's always possible to provide the kind of accurate estimate you are talking about. It depends on the project and the kind of work. For the kind piece work described, by all means. But even then, it's hard to properly spec projects once they get beyond of certain size.

That's ridiculous. That's when you go to milestones. Try telling a publisher that you can't tell them what writing the book or developing the game will cost, but you'll charge them by the hour.

You will never, ever, get any work.

If you can't provide a reasonable estimate and live with it, you are not a credible professional.

If I didn't know better, I'd think Vox was using this thread as a sociological experiment to demonstrate how deep-seated the SJW impulse is, even among those that hold SWJs in contempt.

This does raise the question of whether open source software can survive contact with today's social justice ideals unscathed. ESR's Cathedral/Bazaar analogy may apply here. In order for open source software to exist free of influences that may injure or kill the OSS project, it must move away from the bazaar model (which depended on a common shared culture) towards the cathedral in order to prevent interlopers from kicking over the stalls and farting on the produce.

I've always found it a bit ironic that ESR, as a professed anarchist libertarian, is a proponent of a software model that attracts people with a collectivist mentality. It's been my experience that within open source you find two political orientations: Libertarians and Progressives. The former naturally embraces what the proposed code of conduct is trying establish, making a document of this kind unnecessary. The latter can't be fixed even with a code of conduct. So what Vox is essentially proposing is a mechanism to keep the socialist, bureaucrats, and busy-bodies out.

ESR's Cathedral/Bazaar analogy may apply here. In order for open source software to exist free of influences that may injure or kill the OSS project, it must move away from the bazaar model (which depended on a common shared culture) towards the cathedral in order to prevent interlopers from kicking over the stalls and farting on the produce.

Sort of. Many in open source have made a fetish of egalitarian collaboration, and they took the Bazaar concept to fantasy levels in service of that. But a real-life bazaar has rules and enforcers. It may be a free-for-all within those boundaries, but the boundaries and authorities behind them still exist. (What most people would consider a paradox: strong boundaries can actually give you a stronger sense of freedom within them.) Otherwise, as you suggest, an authority-free, rules-free bazaar would be mayhem and no one would be willing to buy or sell there.

In the real world, successful open source projects always have a small core of people, often a single guy, who make the important decisions and do most of the work. Even when there isn't an official hierarchy written down anywhere, and there may be thousands of other collaborators, there's still a hierarchy that's followed. If not, the project is almost sure to go off the rails or be forked by a group that does have such a hierarchy. So the fantasy of a true round table where everyone has an equal voice and contributes however he's able, such that the chick who promotes the project on social media is on the same level as the guy who's written 70% of the code over the last decade, doesn't exist -- not in any successful project, anyway.

SJW's use scripts to search GitHub and other OSS sites looking for OSS projects which don't have a CoC, or which don't have a CoC they agree with, attack programmers who are often working for free, demand they submit, try to get them removed from the project or fired. These SJW's aren't using the project's code or contributing to the code.

SJW's added their CoC into http://bundler.io/ which is the tool most Ruby programmers use to create Ruby gems. When you use Bundler to create a Ruby gem Bundler offers to add the SJW CoC.

https://github.com/bundler/bundler/issues/3435"This conversation has been locked and limited to collaborators."

From the bundler gem creation process:"Codes of conduct can increase contributions to your project by contributors who prefer collaborative, safe spaces. You can read more about the code of conduct at contributor-covenant.org. Having a code of conduct means agreeing to the responsibility of enforcing it, so be sure that you are prepared to do that. Be sure that your email address is specified as a contact in the generated code of conduct so that people know who to contact in case of a violation. For suggestions about how to enforce codes of conduct, see http://bit.ly/coc-enforcement. y/(n):"

The default option is no.

The code of conduct Bundler refers to is the SJW CoC contributor-covenant.org. This CoC is placed in your gem by default if you choose "yes" when creating your gem.

The enforcement suggestions Bundler refers to are the SJW anti-harassment recommendations http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment/Responding_to_reports

There are some gems *cough* in this AMA.https://apprenticeship.community/events/2015/03/AMA-with-Coraline-Ada-Ehmke.html

SJW's are hunting down and attacking individual projects and developers.SJW's put their CoC, policies, and recommendations in tools developers use to build and share projects.SJW's put their policies and recommendations into technical conferences."The key to responding to conference harassment is having a policy that forbids harassment."

well, one advantage I have found in artist-driven commercial indy game projects is that 'feature creep' is very very low priority.

Every additional feature generally involves a huge chunk of additional artwork. The one thing I distrust more than 'piece of the action', is the 'idea man' concept. "I have a great idea for a game, now all i need to do is find a coder, an artist, and a scripter to make it the bestest game ever! Then i can retire like notch..."